States should lose points for political unrest.

States should not lose points for political unrest. Political unrest shows action and opinion within the public, and for the good intention of the State. It demonstrates the public's willingness to create needed change. Losing points because of political unrest will probably stir even greater unrest and won't deter any type of negative behavior from the public, if that's the goal. Political unrest is given a bad reputation, because it connotes that everyone is participating in unproductive behavior. This isn't always the case, and people shouldn't be penalized for expressing themselves for the betterment of the people and the State.

Political unrest indicates, as James Bryce has mentioned, the voice of the people. Furthermore, however, I think political unrest indicates that a state has been conducive enough to human thought to provoke said unrest-- in some senses, political unrest means that a state has been successful in promoting intellectualism, or at least the ability of citizens to properly analyze their own residence. If anything states should gain points.

States should not lose points for political unrest. Political unrest, while can be an extreme result of oppression, is useful as a voice of the people. The product of political unrest is compromise. The political unrest of the 1960s brought a shift in the political poles. Everything shifted to the left. The political unrest of the era brought more rights to those who did not have any (Blacks, women, gays). Incentivizing the oppression of the people through prevention of political unrest is would not be a good idea. People need to voice themselves and be able to question those in power without retaliation. Furthermore, if there is political unrest, people can leave and find a new place of citizenship from the lack of border protection in the world.

I do not think that punishing a system for political unrest will benefit the community very much. If there is unrest, that means that not all citizens agree with the system in place. As much as one political group, seen as more derisive than the one already in place, can overtake the state possibly to the disagreement of a majority of citizens, so too can a better system replace the existing one. Allowing for this to happen has the potential to bring more democracy into a region. It seems more totalitarian for a community to punish a group for a method of change.

When there is political unrest in a state I believe the state should, in some cases, lose points. When political unrest is so severe that the state is experiencing high levels of violence and death this is when points should be taken away from the state. In this way the taking away of points serves as a potential deterrent to severe violence within a state. If the people of the state understand that they will lose points if they create violence due to political unrest they may choose alternative outlets to violence.

However, I also agree with the previous comment that some social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing and can help bring about political change in certain states. Some states are negatively effected by political unrest in the short run but later benefit because of political changes made within the state. Therefore, I believe that states experiencing political unrest should only be punished in extreme cases.

states should not be negatively affected by social unrest because social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing. it can represent good change. since i would assume the point system is supposed to track the potential of a state, unrest, while it could have immediate negative effects, may benefit the state in the long run

When there is really too much political unrest, people will move to other states where they can live more comfortable and safe. The state is than in fact punished for the unrest in the country by losing its citizens. Without citizens it is useless to have a state, so the state will ensure that there remain enough citizens to keep the state 'going'. A necessary condition is of course that people all over the world/game are free to move wherever and whenever they want. Therefore, I don't think it is needed to have a higher authority above the states to punish them for political unrest. That is making extra levels in order to make extra levels. (how is that level than responsible for its actions..?)

I agree with your statement that people have the opportunity and hopefully the ability to move to another state if the system of the current does not agree with them. The state will then have to work to fix their existing problems in order to calm the unrest that may surface.

I do not believe it's necessary for states to lose points due to political unrest, because the unrest itself should trigger certain effects within itself. It is not necessary to place further internationally recognized sanctions, through point loss, on a state when that state does not have a set population bound to it by citizenship.